On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Louis Solomon [SteelBytes] wrote:
>> ... ATI GPUs are significantly more powerful than
>> those from Intel ...
>
> currently - yes.
>
> but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU) will be interesting. An
> probably very good for reprogramming to do work like colour manage
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Hal V. Engel wrote:
>
> I probably should have included more information. This was an 85% REDUCTION
> in processing times compared to running a single processing on a 2.4 GHz AMD
> 64. So this is about a 650% speed increase. This would still be faster than
> doing the same
> ... ATI GPUs are significantly more powerful than
> those from Intel ...
currently - yes.
but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU) will be interesting. An
probably very good for reprogramming to do work like colour management
Louis
-
On Sunday 12 April 2009 03:57:24 pm Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Hal V. Engel wrote:
> > In addition there is getting to be more software out there that runs on
> > the GPU. For example those here who do panoramas may have used a program
> > named enblend and enblend since version
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Hal V. Engel wrote:
>
> In addition there is getting to be more software out there that runs on the
> GPU. For example those here who do panoramas may have used a program named
> enblend and enblend since version 3.0 has had support for using the GPU to do
> it's blending oper
On Saturday 11 April 2009 08:28:30 pm Guy K. Kloss wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:39:35 i...@littlecms.com wrote:
> > >The whole internet is now filled with hype about this "vulnerability",
> > >and in truth this "patch" breaks littlecms functionality, and probably
> > >opens some back door, so, p
On Sunday 12 April 2009 01:11:36 pm Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Guy K. Kloss wrote:
> > Well, I'm much more afraid of another issue: GPUs are being used
> > much more and more by other processes they more belong to. E. g. the
> > composite manager, etc. And one thing they're not g
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Guy K. Kloss wrote:
> Well, I'm much more afraid of another issue: GPUs are being used
> much more and more by other processes they more belong to. E. g. the
> composite manager, etc. And one thing they're not good at at all is
> task switching. So if more *applications* on
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:27:52 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I have a continuing fear that excessive reliance on GPUs
> will be very bad for the world of free open source software. Free open
> source software should be quite portable and not tied to specific
> proprietary hardware. If the software is not
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Guy K. Kloss wrote:
>
> * Potential to implement additional acceleration for rendering (e. g. using
> the GPU to perform transformations).
GPUs have a reputation being much faster than host CPUs at certain
floating point tasks but it is not clear how this will carry on into
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, Guy K. Kloss wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:42:12 Graeme Gill wrote:
>> Oh good, they can re-implement ICC file parsing and profile interpretation
>> all over again, and make all the same mistakes as everyone else did.
>> (In fact probably even more, if they aren't very famil
>I've been at a conference last week and talked quite a bit there with
Robert
>O'Callahan (Mozilla NZ). And he's told me that they have now ditched
LCMS from
>Mozilla due to the fact of the (in-) security patch. They rather went the
>approach of re-implementing the parts of colour management
Guy K. Kloss wrote:
> That's what I feared, but apparently they've got something that at least
> "sort
> of" works. But at least they're some ambitious folks with some money behind
> them to make certain things work, which helps. Although it may be quite an
> academic advantage.
It'll be great
Am 12.04.09, 15:42 +1000 schrieb Graeme Gill:
> Guy K. Kloss wrote:
>> I've been at a conference last week and talked quite a bit there with Robert
>> O'Callahan (Mozilla NZ). And he's told me that they have now ditched LCMS
>> from
>> Mozilla due to the fact of the (in-) security patch. They rath
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:42:12 Graeme Gill wrote:
> Oh good, they can re-implement ICC file parsing and profile interpretation
> all over again, and make all the same mistakes as everyone else did.
> (In fact probably even more, if they aren't very familiar with color
> science).
That's what I feare
Guy K. Kloss wrote:
> I've been at a conference last week and talked quite a bit there with Robert
> O'Callahan (Mozilla NZ). And he's told me that they have now ditched LCMS
> from
> Mozilla due to the fact of the (in-) security patch. They rather went the
> approach of re-implementing the par
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:39:35 i...@littlecms.com wrote:
> >The whole internet is now filled with hype about this "vulnerability",
> >and in truth this "patch" breaks littlecms functionality, and probably
> >opens some back door, so, please:
I've been at a conference last week and talked quite a bit
> It seems that candidate releases and full releases are distributed
identically with same URLs and using the same names.
Oh, really? I am trying hard to avoid this, as obviously may cause lots
of confusion. May be happened in past, but at least for now shouldn't
happen.
> There have also
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, i...@littlecms.com wrote:
>
> But for the rest it is ok, please make sure to always use lcms full
> distributions. I only verify in full the release, not the candidates.
Marti,
It seems that candidate releases and full releases are distributed
identically with same URLs and u
On Saturday 04 April 2009, i...@littlecms.com wrote:
> But for the rest it is ok, please make sure to always use lcms full
> distributions. I only verify in full the release, not the candidates.
Basically, the problem is that most distributions (at least the major ones)
have a policy of not replac
... Which are probably too strong words. I don't mean oCERT being a
scam, or Andrea being untrustworthy.
oCERT seems to me just a startup, and they did loud noise to gain
popularity. What I dislike is they are doing loud noise using lcms.
But there is nothing evil in Andreas or oCERT per se.
Th
On Friday 03 April 2009, LittleCMS Support wrote:
Ok if I quote this mail on my blog in full?
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
--
___
Lcms-user mailing list
Lcms-us
Thanks Cyrille,
I was aware of that. The short history is, a guy called Adrea Barisani,
claiming to represent some obscure security company called oCERT, was
providing a patch to fix a "vulnerability" they found.
At the end, the oCERT company was just Andrea Barsiani who setup ocert
in 2008 t
23 matches
Mail list logo
